Meeting 1, Introduction, Exercise: Mount Everest Simulation

1. Organizations tend to organize work in teams because, when managed well (motivated and coordinated), they can outperform
individuals who work alone. Among the reasons why teams often outperform individuals are:
• Superior information exchange;
• Better information integration;
• Motivation gains for individual members;
• More ideas, more information, more expertise, more perspectives.
2. Poor team performance is often the result of issues with information exchange, integration, or motivation. For example, teams
may have not processes in place to stimulate information exchange from everybody. Instead, dominant members may exchange
more information, and relevant information from others may get lost. Teams may also use majority decision making rules in
information gathering stages which eliminates minority opinions. It is also possible that individuals who hold unique information
don’t exchange that information because:
• They are unsure whether the information is useful;
• They feel unsafe to disagree with what has been said (have the less powerful speak first!);
• They don’t want to kill group momentum.
Some teams effectively exchange all information, but there is no process which tracks the information effectively and information
is not integrated into the final team decision. The solution to this is to externalize all information in the information gathering
phase through tracking tools. Finally, all teams are subject to free-riding, which leads to motivation loss. In these cases, teams
can become inefficient and/or ineffective.
3. There are also strategic reasons to use teams even when they can take time or don’t lead to an effective outcome. Amongst
those reasons were:
• Teams create accountability and buy-in;
• Teams are seen as more credible than individuals;
• Knowledge transfer.
4. We spoke about team process which can lead to superior performance in the Everest simulation:
• Agree on team goals;
• Assign roles and responsibilities amongst members;
• Consider by which rules the team makes decisions and what consequences of such rules are;
• Try to build trust, psychological safety and norm to speak up (equal airtime);
• Design structures so the most dominant don’t dominate;
• Help low-power people speak up;
• Devil’s advocate.
5. We reviewed a team bias which can make it difficult for teams to capitalize on diverse (unique) information: the common
information effect, or the tendency of teams to elaborate on what information they share, rather than the information they
uniquely hold. This effect is often driven by a social desire of finding common ground and being uncomfortable with opposing
viewpoints. However, it would also occur if we were sampling information randomly. Externalizing all information and finding all
information tentatively valid is one solution to this problem. Another is to actively redirect the discussion to points which indicate
disagreements.
6. Other important takeaways from class:
• The best teamwork requires a 3-step process to segment big problems: 1) preparation (pre-mortem); 2) execution; 3) debrief.
Teams often spend too little time preparing and start executing with a clear defined process (bias for action). There is a strong
relationship between the amount/ quality of preparation and ultimate performance;
• In teams there is tension between value creation (I want the team agenda accomplished) and value claiming (I want my
agenda accomplished);
• Information asymmetry (people assume that everybody has the same information) and goal asymmetry cause teams to
underperform: it is necessary to establish a process to share info (creating fair decision-making processes) and to prioritize
overall goals for the team.
Meeting 2, Effective Group and Team Dynamics, Exercise: Flyzone
1. We engaged in an exercise in which there was no obvious goal conflict, but the information teams held was based on different
standards. The goal of the exercise was to coordinate on the same situational standard that is used to judge work, and to find
out that each team uses a different standard. The difficulties in the exercise were the following:
• Impaired and limited technology;
• Time pressure;
• The lack of clear rules of engagement.
2. Few teams manage to coordinate under these circumstances. These techniques can help coordination and should be
considered in the preparation phase of team work:
• Start with a discussion on “What is the worst possible thing that could happen and why?”;
• Have a pre-mortem: What are reasons this project may fail? Why?
• Try to understand the different assumptions that each team is working from;
• Use perspective-taking (what do they believe about the situation and about us?);
• Agree on a common language and on how to communicate (“create a common language”);
• Divide labor so that no time is lost in duplicating work;
• Understand whether people have successfully worked together in the past or with similar problems and roles;
• Make use of all communication channels available, to gain the richest understanding of the situation possible under the
constraints;
3. We also reviewed key challenges in virtual global teams which are due to:
• Trust problems and the lack of face-to-face contact;
• Time zones and fatigue;
• Lack of accountability;
• Communication problems, such as the transparency illusion (senders overestimate how accurately receivers decode their
message);
• As the leader of a team one is likely not to get the bad news, which is increased by the frequent use of email, mixed with low
and high context cultures and hierarchy differences (hierarchy silences dissent; can lead to disaster).
4. A few general techniques which can address those are:
• Using a team contract to create rules of engagement (engaging in coordination activities);
• Prioritize richer communication channels (e.g., video) over impoverished ones (email, text) - creating a common language and
figuring out how to best communicate;
• Having an emergency communication protocol (which communication channel is used for urgent requests);
• Assigning clear roles and reviewing them periodically;
• Invest in site visits, if possible;
• Share personal experiences when appropriate;
• Having clear rules and created and monitored by the team;
• Use multiple communication channels with clear guidelines specifying which channel to use;
• Understand cultural differences in communication (in low context cultures explicit messages are used [simple, direct, and
clear] while in high context cultures implicit messages are used [read between the lines]).
5. Despite the challenges of teams taking more time to make decisions and sometimes underperforming, they often outperform
individuals when they process is well-designed. However, we also discussed strategic reasons to use teams even when they can
take time or don’t lead to an effective outcome. Amongst those reasons were:
• Teams create accountability and buy-in;
• Teams are seen as more credible than individuals;
• Knowledge transfer.
6. We spoke about the benefits of task-based conflict and the detriments of relationship and status-based conflict. If there is no
task conflict (disagreements among group members about the content of their decisions, differences in viewpoints, and
discussing the pros and cons of different opinions), diversity in knowledge, perspectives, expertise remains underutilized and
teams underperform. However, it is difficult to know how much task conflict is too much. This is where experience is relevant. It
is also difficult for task conflict not to spill over in relationship/personality (perception of incompatibility, typically includes
tension, annoyance and animosity) and/or status conflicts (disputes over people's relative status (i.e., respect) positions in their
group’s social hierarchy). To prevent this from happening it is important to:
• Establish norms of professionalism;
• Establish trust and psychological safety (where there is trust in a team, task conflict tends to be handled in a way that helps
rather than hurts performance);
• Experience of management also helps.
7. We tend to trust people who:
• Are competent, benevolent, and having integrity;
• Are trusting themselves;
• Put trust in us;
• We have shared experiences with.
8. We discussed ways to stimulate disagreement in teams, including:
• Assign the role of a devil’s advocate, or challenger (that should be rotated as to not to create a relationship conflict);
• Practice: What is the worst possible thing which can happen with this decision and why? (Cristal ball pre-mortem – reference
class forecasting);
• Directly ask for disagreement;
• Have everyone ask at least one critical question;
• Assign different groups to advocate different positions and have a third group integrate the information generated by these
two groups (segment process and people matching expertise and roles).
9. Other important takeaways from class:
• In teams with high interdependency, too much latent makes a downside parabola curve (team performance vs. team
percentage of top talent) (too much talent!), while for teams with low interdependency the curve is always ascending with
talent (team performance vs. team percentage of top talent) (not enough talent!)
• How to manage a group with top-talented individuals, that is culturally diverse, working virtually, or geographically
distributed on an interdependency task? 1) Prepare and create a team contract; 2) Make sure everybody uses the same ruler;
3) understand cultural differences in communication; 4) Verify basic assumptions;
• Problems with team preparation: 1) Many projects need more resources and time than originally anticipated; 2) Consistent
underestimation of negative events and overestimation of positive events in projects (optimism bias); 3) Don’t take into
account past experiences, focus on future reward; 4) Inside view rather than comparing to similar projects; 5) Illusion of control
(worse when we give success-based feedback);
• General intelligence represents the finding that people who do well on one task tend to do well on other tasks and collective
intelligence predicted not by personality but by diversity, social sensitivity and more equal participation (groups were less
intelligent when a few group members dominated the discussion9 represents the finding that a team that does well on one
task tends to do well on other tasks;
• Persuasion over time done more and more by other people on behalf of you (critical mass is doing the persuasion).
Meeting 3, Leading with Influence, Case: 12 Angry Men
1. We reviewed three types of influence strategies (think strategically):
• Influence which exploits mindless processing, or lack of attention of people: When people don’t pay much attention, they are
influenced by superficial cues that are sometimes diagnostic of credibility, but not perfectly so (for example, titles, dress, age
etc.);
• Information framing: This is a class of influence strategies which packages the same argument in a slightly different context.
For example, the contrast effect is an example where one option becomes more salient in the presence of a similar but inferior
option;
• Incentive-based influence: This set of influence strategies uses an argument or request together with the activation of
fundamental social motives, such as the desire to be consistent with our initial commitments, or the desire to belong to a
majority.
2. We watched a segment of a Hollywood classic called 12 Angry Men. This video case showcases a minority influence situation
and highlights strategic considerations when one is in the minority and the three types of influence strategies we discussed
above. A separate handout called “12 Angry Men Case Discussion Takeaways” summarizes our case discussion.
3. The lecture part of the meeting summarized various examples of the three influence strategies discussed above.
Influence based on mindless processing
• Symbolic communicators of authority such as dress, voice (pitch, tremble, accent), uniform, gender (under some
circumstances), body posture, names etc. that are weakly correlated with expertise, competence, and status judgments;
• Liking. We tend to be more easily persuaded by people whom we like, and we like people who are similar, proximate, familiar.
We also are biased towards people who are physically more attractive and who pay us compliments (in short term
interactions).
Information framing
• We reviewed framing techniques which rely on the availability heuristic, or the rule of thumb that more readily available
memory exerts a greater influence on our judgment. Here, communication which is more vivid is more easily available in our
minds and therefore more persuasive. Strategies which increase vividness include: Asking questions (rather than stating facts),
telling stories (rather than stating facts), mental simulations and role play, using props;
• We also discussed general rules that make stimuli more salient, or stand out: Contrast effects, going first or last in a sequence,
dominating the visual field, being unusual for a category;
• Foot-in-the-door technique: We can get someone to agree to a large request by first setting them up to agree to a
small/modest request (small increases in requests do not seem large enough to refuse; people are generally motivated to be
consistent with their initial commitments);
• Door-in-the-face technique: Refusing a large request increases compliance for later, smaller request (others think that you are
making concessions, which motivates them to reciprocate; If you want something, ask for more than you want, and be
prepared to make concessions);
• Finally, we discussed framing information as losses versus gains, and noted that framing information as losses promotes more
action and risk-taking relative to framing information as gains.
Incentive based influence
• The strategies which we discussed were: commitment and consistency; reciprocity, conformity, social proof, and scarcity;
• Depending on the situation, influence tactics need to consider timing and targeting.
12 Angry Men, Case Discussion Takeaways
General strategic considerations when in a minority position
• Time is generally wasted by trying to persuade those who are clearly opposing your position-fighting will cost you time, energy,
and may make you appear too confrontational. It can be more helpful to find out who is in doubt (i.e., fencesitters) and target
them (most important task is to find an ally!);
• When you are in a minority, you are likely to win an argument only if you are seen as a central member of a group, are
consistent in defending your position, and present your position as the default normative position of the group;
• Don’t say “I disagree” when in a minority. This breeds defensiveness;
• When in a minority, it is best not to appear emotional so that the majority cannot stereotype you as irrational. Similarly, you
should not look like pursuing a personal agenda—it is too easy to discard your position as irrational when there is vested
interested;
• Appeal to procedure, fairness, morality;
• Ask for small things.
Influence strategies leveraging mindless processing
• When someone sets a conversational anchor in the conversation (e.g., “I think we proofed that the old man couldn’t have
heard the boy yell”), it is best to quickly throw in another anchor so that the first one does not “set” in people’s minds;
• Making conversational references like “We established that….” is persuasive as it suggests agreement. People who don’t pay
attention will infer their position from these statements;
• When an opponent in a group discussion makes a really strong argument, but people are distracted, do not argue against the
really strong argument, as this will only make the strong argument stronger. On the other hand, if someone makes a
moderately strong point, acknowledge the point because it makes you look rational;
• Asking questions can be more powerful than stating facts. Even people who do not answer the question verbally will answer
the question in their mind, generate arguments related to it and self-persuade;
• People often don’t pay attention to the impact of rules for the outcome of decision-making processes. In the film, asking for a
private vote is one of these examples. The sequence by which people make arguments is also consequential. So, if you can
make the rules of a decision-making process (e.g., by deciding voting format, roles, agenda points), spend some time thinking
about what your goals are and how the rules are aligned with your goals;
• As a majority member chose majority and public rule. To gather unique perspectives, vote privately (releases peer pressure to
conform – Conformity – influence tactic);
• Preliminary votes anchor people and create confirmation bias – chose instead consensus rule and private voting;
Influence strategies leveraging the framing of information
• When there are strong conformity pressures against your position, it can be useful to reframe the goal of the conversation. In
the film, when people were finding reasons for why the defendant was guilty and that he did not make a strong case for his
innocence, Fonda reframes the problem by saying that the defendant does not have to prove his innocence;
• Stories are more credible than facts because they are richer in cognitive and emotional associations. If you are faced with a
strong story tying together all the facts, you need an alternative story that ties together the same facts in a different way;
• Couching strong arguments together with weaker ones can dilute the strength of the strong argument (dilution effect). They
also make you more vulnerable because opponents can expose the weakness of the relatively weaker arguments;
• Strong and vivid counterexamples (e.g., the knife) make for a stronger argument than mere logic.
Influence strategies leveraging motivation and incentives
• If a minority of people opposes your position, asking for public deliberations is helpful because it increases conformity pressure
on the minority. If most people oppose a position, it is better to make deliberations private (e.g., face-to-face) to decrease
conformity pressures on those who are undecided about their position;
• People have a hard time saying no to requests when these requests appeal to values everybody deems important (e.g.,
rationality, morality)—people want to appear rational and moral to others. When Henry Fonda asks for one hour of their time
given that they are deciding about the life of a young man, people feel compelled to give him that one hour;
• The one-hour request also invokes the heuristic of commitment and consistency. Once you get people to commit to spend x
amount of time with you, they will have a hard time leaving early (especially when that commitment was public);
• In the face of strong resistance, you can gain a breakthrough by asking for small things. People will feel obliged to give in a
small request especially if they have turned down a large one previously.
Other important takeaways
• Reciprocity: we try to repay in kind what another person has provided us; we feel obligated and indebted; stable across
cultures, some differences in timing; the rule is overpowering; the rule enforces uninvited debts (diffuse felt obligation); the
rule can trigger unequal exchanges (no quid pro quo); tolerance to delayed reciprocity necessary for trust;
• Availability heuristic: Events that are vivid, easily imagined, or consistent with memory structures are more memorable and
influential; create or use vivid, easily imagined scenarios (e.g., the knife); stories that might explain the outcome; role play and
simulations; questions; strong verbs; protecting yourself (don’t rely on the first thing that comes to mind; think about why
 something comes to mind; involve others who will recall different things); influencing others (strategic description of events
or data points; increase perceived importance and probability → describe in vivid detail and make easy to process; decrease
perceived importance and probability → describe w/o detail, make hard to process);
• Causal attributions: “External” attributions (e.g., “he’s been kicked around all his life” and “lived in an orphanage”) vs.
“internal” attributions (“he’s a dangerous killer” and “he’s a born liar”);
• Loss aversion: Tendency for losses to loom larger than gains (e.g., losing hurts more than winning feels good); we are risk
averse to gains but risk seeking to losses; gains → certain outcome is preferred to gamble of equal or greater expected value;
losses → Certain outcome is rejected in favor of a risky gamble; framing changes the problem but NOT the data!
• Social proof: The greater the number of people who find any idea correct, the more we will perceive the idea to be correct;
works better if Uncertainty & Ambiguity about what to do; the people around us are sufficiently similar; examples: Comedy
shows, bystanders, marketing techniques, (“the phones are busy”), conversational references;
• Injunctive norms: The norms of what people commonly approve/disapprove of. They motivate by providing evidence of the
social sanctions that likely apply to behavior (best than charity focus);
• Descriptive norms: The norms of what people typically do. They motivate by providing evidence of what will likely be effective
and adaptive behavior (best than charity focus and injunctive norms);
• Scarcity: We tend to assign more value to opportunities when they seem less available; scarcity seems to be particularly potent
when something just became scarce and when we compete with others for them; examples: “Buy now! Supplies are limited!”
and “Limited time offer!”; auction fever (competition, scarcity, and time pressure); open houses.
Meeting 4, Personality Test
• Personality: Traits, characteristics, or preferences that pre-dispose us to think, feel, and behave in a certain way. People tend
to prefer one of the two opposites on each of the Big 5 personality traits (OCEAN). Personality can (and does) change, to some
extent over time due to Environmental influence (education, culture, parents, roles, therapy, life events). Preference for
behavior; easy to observe, especially in “weak” situations. Explains everyday behavior of normal people. Develops early, but
still changes between 20 and 40. Source of relationship and status conflict. Correlations with leadership emergence/success,
salary progression, health, happiness;
• Why personality is important? Increase self-awareness (identify potential strengths/limitations of your preferred
interpersonal styles); develop a common language to understand and predict self & others (identify the source of interpersonal
conflict); Big Five gives insight into fit of individual for job, task, organization (fit predicts performance, motivation, retention,
‘going the extra mile’); self-control and regulation can be important - especially among people at the extremes;
• Openness to experience: The inclination to be interested in new and/or unusual things. Low scores: Down to earth, narrow
range of activities and interests, practical/technical, conventional; + Have good grasp of what is happening on day-to-day basis
in organization, good project managers; - May not see the big picture, fixed ideas about world, too much focused on here and
now. Manage yourself when low: Reverse engineering: creativity training; design thinking; exploring aesthetics, ideas).
Manage others who are low: Provide them data, facts, etc. High scores: Creative, imaginative, artistic, experimental,
intellectually curious, unconventional; + Creative, enjoy change, tolerant new ideas; - Changes opinion too often, doesn’t care
about standard operating procedures, can appear unrealistic and inconsistent. Manage yourself when high: Don’t lose
consistency and focus. Manage others who are high: Be creative; ready to brainstorm; give big picture first, then facts;
• Conscientiousness: Interest in leading a structured and organized life. Low scores: Spontaneous, flexible, disorganized,
sometimes careless; + Responsive to changing needs, easy going, relaxed outlook; - Easily distracted, chaotic and disorganized
(some say less reliable). Manage yourself when low: Need to increase structure (e.g., enlist help from tools and/or other
people); value-based framing (e.g., I will be on time because I care about my relationship with X). Manage others who are
low: Increase structure; plan more time; manage more. High scores: Efficient, well-organized, likes to finish things, strong
sense of duty, self-disciplined; + Reliable, hard worker with high drive, very structured, perfectionist; - Workaholic, can be hard
on others, obsessive about control. Manage yourself when high: Increase social awareness, step back and learn to delegate.
Manage others who are high: Stay organized, show up on time; have an agenda, cover all points; don’t waste time;
• Extraversion/Interpersonal patterns: The predisposition to get energy from being around others, and to be dominant in
groups. Low scores: Reserved, serious, prefers privacy, slow-paced, perceived as loners; + Think carefully, they are non-
disruptive, effective listeners; - Don’t make enough contact, smaller networks, have difficulties motivating others, often
misunderstood and perceived as unfriendly or arrogant. Manage yourself when low: Work on specific behaviors tied to a
person/situation/day; understand mispredictions. Manage others who are low: Give more written feedback, spend more time
listening; allow them to work alone/recharge etc. High scores: Outgoing, sociable, talkative, assertive, dominant, fast-paced;
+ They are (initially) liked, good networkers, inclusive; - Act before they think, they don’t listen, have no time, can bulldoze
others, dislike solitary confinement. Manage yourself when high: Stop yourself when you think “I’ve got something really
interesting that I must say!”. Manage others who are high: Need to create opportunities for them to listen;
• Agreeableness: The tendency to “go along to get along” and place high value on getting along well with others. Low scores:
Skeptical, tough-minded competitive, hard-headed, impersonal, analytical; + Thick skinned, focused on getting deal done,
analytical, ask tough questions, make tough decisions; - Alienate others, often get into conflict, generate low trust in others.
Manage yourself when low: Understand value of cooperation and trust; ask questions, actively listen. Manage others who
are low: Ask what they think rather than feel; Be prepared for disagreement and approach with problem-solving mindset.
 High scores: Compassionate, co-operative, friendly, tolerant, trusting, good-natured; + Good at building relationships, caring,
trusting, and charitable; - Transparent and predictable to others, easily taken for a ride, they avoid conflict, can’t make difficult
decisions. Manage yourself when high: Work on difficult conversations (role play, write down, or outsource). Manage others
who are high: Be sensitive but specific; help understand when disagreement is valuable;
• Neuroticism/Emotional Reactions: The propensity to experience and to understand negative emotions. Low scores: Calm,
patient, even-tempered, self-confident, resilient to stress; + Always cool, good in crises, stable, stay calm, get things done, and
bounce back from failures; - Perceived as cool, dull indifferent, insensitive, and unaware of others’ feelings. Manage yourself
when low: Think actively of risks, threats. Manage others who are low: Be very direct with feedback (“sledgehammer”). High
scores: Anxious, irritable, moody, lower self-esteem, sensitive to stress; + They wear their emotions on their sleeve, will not
allow team to get complacent, stress-meters; - Stress out everyone else, too nervous and stressed leading to burnout, take a
lot of time and difficult to manage. Manage yourself when high: Meditation, Medication, CBT; work on feedback
receptiveness. Manage others who are high: Be careful, tailor feedback to their mood;
• Individuals who emerge and become effective as leaders are more likely to be conscientious, emotionally stable, open-minded
extraverts;
• Content of NEO report: 1) Summary of most distinctive characteristics; 2) Big 5’ categories with subcategories; 3) Overall
category score at end; 4) Skills categories (problem solving skills; planning, organizing, and implementation skills; style of
relating to others; personal style (emotional outlook)); 5) Conclusions and next steps;
• Applying personality knowledge: 1) Increase self and other-awareness: Learn who you (others) are, leverage your (their)
strengths; 2) Influence people by: Express the same or complementary style (e.g., dominance—submission; talkative—listen;
express worry—agree with worry); 3) Predict reactions to situations/requests: How would a person high in neuroticism behave
if I was to tell him that his work will change tomorrow, dramatically? 4) Feel in control, because you understand people better:
Knowing better why people do what they do, making your world less random.
Meeting 5, Negotiations & Feedback
Negotiations
1. We defined negotiations as a back and forth communication to reach an agreement. Negotiations can be evaluated with these
three criteria:
• Did the negotiation reach a wise agreement, or an agreement that satisfies the interests of both parties as much as possible?
• Was the negotiation efficient and did not stall, waste anyone’s time?
• Did the negotiation improve, or at least not hurt, the relationship between the two parties?
2. We defined investigative negotiators as asking the following questions (positions vs. interests):
• What is it that I/the other party want? (negotiators who discover interests of other parties get better deals; the more you
know about what’s motivating the other party, the better your outcome will be; makes it more likely will find a mutually
acceptable deal)
• Why do I/the other party want these things?
• How much does I/the other party want each one of these things?
• What are alternatives?
3. We negotiate about issues, and issues can either be compatible (we want the same thing – cooperative: build the relationship
[aligned preferences]), distributive (we want exactly the opposite thing – tug of war: your gain is my loss [win/loss]), or integrative
(we want different things but not equally so – Find out interests so both win: trade-off items of different value that can be
traded![win/win]). Negotiations can also be a mix of any of those issue types. Fixed pie bias: False belief that there are only
distributive issues in all negotiations; Hurts relationships and does not maximize value.
4. Agreeing on compatible issues can kick start a relationship (we agreed once, we can agree again). Compatible issues can also
be used strategically if the other party does not understand the compatibility of an issue. There is a risk that the other party finds
out later, which can hurt relationships. Then create value on integrative issues and claim value on distributive issues
5. Integrative issues must be dealt with by discovering the interests of the other party for mutual gain (“enlarge the pie”) through:
• Asking directly;
• Perspective taking (imagine/brainstorm; “If I were her, I would want…”);
• Observing to which the other party keeps on getting back to;
• Making multiple proposals to indirectly infer (strength of) interests;
• Adding issues (more currency to trade);
• Give up low priority issues in exchange for high priority ones.
6. Distributive issues require value-claiming strategies. In mixed issues negotiations, negotiating too hard on distributive issues
can make it less likely that integrative solutions are found (“slice the pie”). Value-claiming strategies include:
• Understanding target, reservation price (“What’s the worst deal you’re willing to accept before you walk away?” - depends on
risk tolerance and has a value), BATNA (Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement – highest value amongst all my options);
• Anchoring quickly (never low) and high as justifiable (select good reference points) and talk about it as long as possible (making
first offer usually helps) and counter-anchoring (discredit validity and/or flip dimension of anchor) immediately (aggressive
offers/counter-offers allow for further concessions, gives a better outcome and increases the opponent’s happiness);
• State ranges only strategically (the lowest value should be your target);
• And how you expect reciprocity;
• Set high aspirations (Aspiration price: “What’s the best possible deal you aspire to?” - our goal).
7. Other important takeaways from class:
• Are some people “born” negotiators? Meta-analysis: Very small and unsystematic effects of Big 5 personality on negotiation
outcomes (some evidence: in the absence of strong aspirations, agreeableness and extraversion hurt value-claiming; openness
helps with value-creation); Cognitive ability matters! (small effect on value claiming, moderate effect on value creation,
moderate effect on negotiator satisfaction);
Feedback (good feedback contains the outcome of the behavior, the process to reach the right outcome and self-regulation/monitoring)
• Benefits of getting more feedback: 1) Self-awareness (who am I?); 2) Perspective-taking (why do others see me this way?);
3) Development gaps (what should I start doing, stop doing, do more of?); 4) Evaluation (assessment of performance; inform
as to future possibilities and promotions; reward or punish); 5) Development (develop plan for training and development; goal
setting; leverage strengths; address weaknesses); 6) Communicates standards and how to monitor progress towards them;
• Impediments to learning: 1) People tend to believe they are better than average; 2) People tend to be overly optimistic;
3) People who lack skills are more inaccurate in their self-assessment; 4) People are skilled in rationalizing negative feedback
(Easterners generally more accepting of criticism); 5) People tend to blind out information when they pursue a specific goal;
• Feedback is critical to improve but many psychological processes work against it, including: 1) The view we are better than
average, or even special; 2) An overly optimistic prediction of the future; 3) Defensive attributions of feedback; 4) Selective
attention. This suggests for feedback to work we should develop: 1) A realistic self-view, in which we realize we are not perfect
but can improve; 2) An appreciation for how overconfidence can cause costs in risky situations; 3) A mindset that enables us
to examine the same information with different goals in mind;
• How not to do it: 1) The feedback judges people, not actions (“You need to be a better team player; you were too abrasive”);
2) The feedback is too vague (“ You are a good leader; you did a good job”); 3) The feedback comes as a surprise (“Stefan, can
I please have a word with you?!”); 4) The feedback is sandwiched (+-+-+); 5) The feedback is exaggerated with generalities
(“Always or never”); 6) The feedback psychoanalyzes the motives behind the behavior (“Your issues with your husband are
probably behind these errors in the budget”); 7) The feedback contains an ultimatum (“If you are not going to shape up, you
are out…”); 8) The feedback uses sarcasm (“Glad you could make it”; “Good afternoon”); 9) The feedback is a leading question,
not a statement (“Do you think you can pay attention during our next meeting?!”); 10) Adjust timing (immediate or not);
• When are people more motivated to listen? 1) They like you and/or think you are competent (trust); 2) They care about the
issue; 3) They feel the process by which the feedback will be delivered is fair; 4) You consider their personality, style, and
cultural sensitivities; 5) You framed the initial conversation broadly; 6) Think about how you would like to receive the feedback
(feedback is often too blunt; how you deliver the information is as important); 7) The giver’s intentions are visible benign
• What makes people understand? 1) Start with goals and create context for the conversation: avoid the illusion of transparency
(“What are we talking about and why?”; refer events in sequence); 2) Use simple language and no jargon; 3) Use vividness
techniques (stories; perspective-taking; mental simulations); 4) Don’t use irrelevant info and document it for future revision;
• What increases people’s ability to translate feedback into behavior? 1) Feedback on behaviors - specific examples but put
into larger context; 2) Timeliness; 3) Feedback takes into account the expertise level (novices → commitment → want more
positive feedback; experts → improvement → want more negative feedback); 4) Three critical pieces of information:
Outcomes of behavior; process of how outcomes come about; monitoring strategies to evaluate whether process works;
• Strategies to take ourselves further: 1) Benefit-finding: Train yourself to find benefits/learnings in negative feedback;
2) Understand: Write down your thoughts on the feedback you get about yourself; 3) Self-distancing: Try to understand them
better by distancing yourself; Fair feedback: Receiver has voice in the process; can appeal the outcome; applied to everybody;
• Giving feedback: 1) Take perspective (OCEAN personality traits and cultural backgrounds); 2) Use legitimate, objective
standards; 3) Framing - make the same piece of feedback easy to digest; 4) Incentivize to provide accurate feedback;
• Receiving feedback: 1) Ask for candid feedback; 29 Take time to digest; 3) Think about whether feedback is consistent across
time and givers (“Convergent validity” [is it the same as former feedback?]; internal vs. external attribution [is it me or
something else?]); 4) think about what you want to change (and how) and what not (and why).
Meeting 6, Motivation and Leadership, Case: SEMCO
1. We reviewed that effective leaders (most leaders fail to do this consistently – stress on job mainly caused by incompetent
managers/ leaders and by heavy workload):
• Are self-aware and can control themselves;
• Have social skill and can maintain relationships;
• Can influence, build, and maintain a team;
• Can plan, organize, monitor, and use resources.
2. Having competent and trustworthy leaders increases people’s willingness to exert effort for the organization. There is a strong
relationship between perceptions of competence and trustworthiness, competence may lead to trust and vice versa.
3. We noted that many leaders are seen as incompetent by their subordinates and by their senior managers. Almost all examples
of incompetent behaviors we generated are indicative of lack of interpersonal, leadership, or political skill—but less so of technical
skills. We discussed why this may be the case and noted that many people are promoted into leadership positions in which
primary skill demands change. Often, people are promoted based on being technically excellent, but that skill alone is not enough
to be proficient in the skills mentioned in 1).
4. We discussed traps which can contribute to us not making successful career transitions, including:
• Hedonic trap: We continue to do what feels good;
• Competency trap: The organization continues to assign work to us we are good at, preventing us from learning new skills.
5. We also spoke about how star characteristics (track record, commitment/sacrifice, charm, brilliance, ambition) can turn into
career liabilities/weaknesses when we are either seen as over-doing them or actually over-do them. Common career derailers:
1) unable to adapt; 2) Insensitive, intimidating style; 3) Lacking integrity/dishonest/unethical; 4) Risk averse/short-sighted/not
strategic/too analytical; 5) Conflict avoidant/spineless/insecure/indecisive; 6) Disorganized/unresponsive/poor planning; 7)
Arrogant/offensive/self-interested/unapproachable/distant;
6. We noted that diversification of skill sets, outward attention, and not over-relying on one single skill are good strategies to
help us with career progression. Additionally, understand how transitions, or changes in context (new job, new coworkers, new
competitors) demand different behaviors to be effective. Realize that most derailment cases are not caused by perceived lack of
technical skills. People come to perceive as incompetent or untrustworthy when we over-rely on a particular style.
7. The SEMCO case created a platform to talk about how control of effort can be exercised in various ways - by providing relatively
richer intrinsically relevant incentives/motivation (activity is rewarding in itself; feel a sense of accomplishment and achievement;
feel what you are doing is worthwhile) such as autonomy, participation in decision-making, autonomy, and innovation (open-
source programmers participate for the fun and challenge of mastering a problem). Extrinsic incentives/motivation (activity is
performed to acquire material or social rewards or to avoid punishment; may lead to choke under pressure) such as pay are also
determined in a fair and very transparent manner (extrinsic incentives motivate, but their capacity to do so may be limited. The
case also highlighted the self-fulfilling nature of the communication of performance and trust expectations. Positive performance
expectations are often undermined by micromanagement and tight organizational controls.
8. In addition to the belief that your manager expects you can perform well, organizations also communicate other types of
beliefs that are relevant to motivation, including:
• The belief that my efforts translate into performance;
• The belief that my performance translates into rewards.
Both beliefs contribute to motivation and future effort. However, very strong links between performance and rewards (e.g., very
detailed KPI’s) can also be problematic because:
• Over time, they can lead to gaming;
• Over time, the population learns how to hit the target, diminishing your ability to differentiate between high and low
performers (Icarus metaphor - what got you there won’t keep you there);
• The KPI’s may stifle resourcefulness and creativity;
• The KPI’s may not be entirely aligned with the strategic goals of the company.
9. Other important takeaways from class:
• What makes you happier, buying experiences or things? Experiences like meals, concerts, and vacations make you happier
than purchasing durable goods; Lead to shared experiences with others and increase social connections; wealth predicts
happiness better for more materialistic people; set point theory of happiness (we have a fixed 'average' level of happiness
around which our day-to-day and moment-to-moment happiness varies; links between happiness and Big 5 showing that
people higher on these traits will be more positive (extraversion) or less positive (neuroticism) about things; life events
temporarily bump this up or down); choosing the right pond (context) to be happy (don’t end up being second best); best
predictors of personal happiness are job security, health, leisure, relationships; be aware of your set-point of happiness;
manage major life events carefully so you can capture their positive effect on happiness;
• What are the constraints of using money as a motivator? Money is important, up to a point, and depends on context (person
and situation); organizations don’t have endless supply of money (at least not for everyone) - there may be cheaper incentives
to get us close to the same goals;
• “Self-fulfilling prophecy”: People treat others according to expectations, which makes it likely those expected behaviors
actually occur; my effort leads to high performance → my performance leads to outcomes → I care about these outcomes;
• Why don’t leaders give more autonomy? 1) People don’t like to give up control! (people in powerful positions feel the need
to (and are better able to) control their environment); 2) Managers and leaders feel like they’re not doing their job if they
delegate; 3) We don’t think others can do the job as well; 4) We underestimate extent to which others are intrinsically
motivated;
• Motivation – What? 1) Competent and trustworthy leaders; 2) Money and status; 3) Favorable social comparisons; 4) Positive
self-beliefs; 5) Both intrinsic and extrinsic incentives; 6) Fairness; 7) Different leadership styles;
• Motivation – How? 1) Doing too much of a good thing can lead to incompetence/untrustworthiness; 2) Be aware of set-point
of happiness; 3) Performance expectations are self-fulfilling; 4) Consider the links between effort, performance and reward;
5) Be careful not to make incentives perverse; 6) Modulate your behavior to the situation;